Transient Spaces: Habitat of the Outcast

The following proceeds from the forum about architecture and indeterminacy*:

In reaction to a capitalist economics and its effect on the social, cultural and political domain, some people have chosen to resist by living outside the mainstream. Others do not have a choice: they live "outside" because society has rejected them. In cities, this exclusionary phenomenon has a spatial inscription, the dropouts occupy excluded spaces where they can deviate from the accepted 'norm'. Escaping from the planning authorities' control, these spaces are called 'spaces of indeterminacy'.

Indeterminate spaces are difficult to quantify because of their inherent heterogeneity and although the speakers at the Architecture and Indeterminacy Theory Forum gave many examples of such places, their location, physical characteristics, use and users, there was no single definition of such a space. Several speakers, including Gil Doron, described the nature of these zones, which are the consequence of the subdivision of cities through modern planning practices. This has created 'edge spaces' also known as 'gaps' or 'interstitial urban places',1 whose tricky ownership rights and physical characteristics (not easily accessible, too small, have irregular shapes), have made them difficult to utilise through the common means of architecture and urban planning. Thus, they are excluded from the planning process. Doron called them "an outside within the inside"2 because they still have a "symbiotic although unrealised"3 relationship to the rest of the city. They can be found between industrial and residential areas, between tower blocks, under bridges and on pavements. However, they are difficult to map as they undergo constant change, making them unreadable.

These spaces have no assigned function but many informal uses, usually unofficial and illegal. They are mostly occupied by marginalised groups: squatters, subcultures, the homeless, prostitutes, cultural minorities and drug addicts.

Temporality is another key aspect of these spaces, which can be described as 'dead'4 at certain times of day or night but not at others. What is more, the lifetime of these 'out-of-control zones' is limited - these are transient spaces. According to Dougal Sheridan5 some indeterminate spaces disappear with time whilst others are formalised.

The heterogeneous nature of these spaces, as described above, leads to a variety of different names for them. Some are called 'free spaces', as they are related to life and they encourage their occupants to be creative and express their identity without limit. Sheridan states, "Indeterminacy is freedom"6; he also noted that subcultures living in these spaces have a more direct relationship with space than the dominant cultures inhabiting the controlled zones. They more actively appropriate the built environment by injecting it with their own meaning. A number of speakers conceptualised these spaces as 'culture producers' and Sheridan illustrated this idea through the example of Berlin's 'Besetzt Huser', which were renovated and reorganised by minority groups in response to their own needs. He asserted that architects should use these houses as a model, which provides the users with a framework but also a certain freedom to change their space. One student essay7 refers to graffiti and street art as another way of appropriating space and states that architects should learn from these practices.

Peter Mrtenbck and Helge Mooshammer also referred to indeterminate spaces as 'culture producers' by mentioning three examples of informal markets: Izmailovo Market Moscow, Istanbul Topkapi and Arizona Market Brcko (BaH). They viewed them as "... a myriad of indeterminate parallel worlds [...] within the same place."8 According to their research, the large-scale informal markets of the past two decades are the consequence of the geopolitical transformations of Europe and they believe their existence is important in developing "new dynamics of cultural networking."9

In contrast to this affirmative notion, spaces of indeterminacy are also referred to, negatively as, 'a no man's land', 'urban voids' or even 'dead zones'10. Doron argues that "... these zones are alive, used by men, and full of memories." However, one could question whether every occupant of these spaces really does think of them as 'alive', whilst some subcultures might agree, others, such as homeless people, may find this too optimistic as they are weary of being rejected and of living in bad conditions.

As far as the architect's role is concerned, Doron warned the audience: "Do not touch these spaces." He suggested that we as architects should accept them in order to protect their occupants and the activities taking place within them. Unfortunately, current planning authorities seem to be headed in a different direction and their aim seems to be to sanitise these spaces. One should perhaps remember that people occupy these spaces not for the lack of spatial control, but due to human exclusion, may it be social, cultural, economic or political.

*(Edited by Deborah Jund,

from the forum "Architecture and Indeterminacy",

Sheffield School of Architecture, 2007)

1Gil Doron, 'Missing Bonaventure Hotel and other sites of suspension' in Architecture and Indeterminacy Theory Forum (The University of Sheffield, School of Architecture, 2006)

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

5Ibid.

6Dougal Sheridan, 'The Space of Subculture in the City: Getting Specific About Berlin's Indeterminate Territories' in Architecture and Indeterminacy Theory Forum (The University of Sheffield, School of Architecture, 2006)

7Ben Craggs, 'Indeterminate galleries. Graffiti & 'Dead Space: Nuisance or Cultural Pioneer?', Fifth Year student essay (The University of Sheffield, School of Architecture, 2007)

8Peter Mörtenböck and Helge Mooshammer, 'Trading Indeterminacy: Informal Markets in Europe' in Architecture and Indeterminacy Theory Forum (The University of Sheffield, School of Architecture, 2006)

9Mörtenböck and Mooshammer, op.cit.

10Doron, op.cit.